Re: New Language

Garrett wrote:

> Hello everyone, I am creating a new language called Malat. It is
> intended to be the most logical language ever created.
That's a rather presomptuous aim, don't you think? I have always
wondered what people meant by *logical* languages (are there any
*illogical* languages, by the way?), and as a matter of facts,
many so-called logical langs often show lots of illogicalities,
whereas artlangs are sometimes paradoxically much more regular
and logical...

> This will be the first time that anyone else but me (and my family)
> has seen the language. Currently I only have a short grammar
> description and a pre/postfix list up. Check it out at
>         http://www.metro.net/3jones/malat/
> I'd greatly appreciate any comments or ideas that you have.
You states:

   "The basic concept of Malat, which is completely original, is
   that of Cause and Effect: every action causes another action,
   which causes another action, and so on."

I'll have to see a complex example of this feature to appreaciate
it, though I do no see the intended originality. In the grammar,
you give the following example:

   "The cause and effect philosophy can also be used for concepts
   like the reason and the purpose of an action:

      oL gusrt uaL *connector word here* aL kik ioL
         = Because he didn't like me, I kicked him.

   literally: He doesn't like me, *so*, I kick him."

You mean that the connector word is implicit in Malat? ("so" is
supposed to be absent?). The 'absolute genitive' participial clauses
in ancient greek function a bit like this (they imply a causality
relationship: "Having been kicked, Socrate falled").


   "Another unique concept is that most modifiers can be used
   on both verbs, nouns, and adjectives. Because of the structure
   of Malat, many unique concepts can be made by using simple
   construction rules."

Regarding uniqueness, I am afraid that many conlangs (and even
natlangs) work this way. Nova (Brad Coon's conlang) has a strong
oligosynthetic structure and has therefore reached a particular
status on this topic.


  "Only 6 vowels are used in Malat: a, e, i, o, u, and r. They are
   pronounced "ahh", "ehh", "eee", "ohh", "ooo", and "err" (like in
   dot, set, meet, note, root, and her). The 'e' has a slight ey
   sound (like in the word 'hey'), but the sound shouldn't be carried
   off to the 'ee' sound like many speakers do (like 'hey-ee'). The
   vowels are always pronounced the same way everywhere."

The last sentence underlies that there is no allophones, but
is contradicted by the previous discussion of /e/ and also
by the examples:

  "English --> spelled 'ingLec' + 'e' --> ingLece
   (pron. een-gleshey)"

So /e/ is rendered as [Ej] at the end of this word, but as [E]
in the middle. That's a kind of allophone, isn't it?

  "gusoc = will like"

How do you pronounce this word, [gusoc] or [gusOc]? (where [0]
is the reverse-c IPA character). Personally I would tend
toward [O].

Though I am not a native english speaker, I am also puzzled by
your /a/ ("ahh" vs. "dot"? It doesn't seem to be the same sound).

Perhaps you should consider using a more precise phonetic
transcription. I am also pretty sure that you'll have to
allow some allophones when the language will be more
developed. It's difficult to get rid of them...

Regards.

Didier
-- -